United States v. Alejandro Gonzalez

Good Law
683 F.3d 1221·2012 WL 2402057·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13149
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 201211-10380California2,257 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tallman, J.

The United States Constitution and federal law require that crimes be prosecuted where the offense was committed. This venue requirement, however, is more easily stated than applied. Determining where an offense occurred can be quite tricky — particularly for continuing crimes, like conspiracy, where the conspirators’ activities often have a ripple-like effect that may involve numerous districts.

Here, the district court correctly determined that venue for a drug-sale conspiracy was proper in the Northern District of California based on two telephone calls initiated by a government informant, who was in the district, to defendant-appellant Alejandro Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), who was located outside of the district. By using those calls to negotiate the terms of a drug deal to be completed in the Eastern District of California, Gonzalez propelled the conspiracy into the Northern District of California. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

The parties stipulated to the following facts at a bench trial before the district judge: At the direction of Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents, a confidential informant (“Cl”) placed at least two…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.